Biblical Creation or Big Bang Cosmology: What Say You?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kevkraft
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kevkraft

Guest
I recent Gallup poll indicated that only 38% of those polled, which presumably included those who call themselves, Christians, Catholics and other related sects, believe the Genesis account of the origin of the Universe and that of Man. I have asked “believers” who disbelieve the Bible’s creation account for their rationalization of their belief in the Big Bang cosmology and Evolutionism, both of which are based in atheism, but never get areal answer. “Well, science tell us” is erroneous if the “scientists” are atheists who reject God in the first place. All their scientific assertions will be skewed that way. (Same with Creationism, but then the question becomes, “Whom do you believe–God’s Word or the word of those who despise him?”) I’ve even heard self-professed believers claim that Genesis’s account of Creation is, “Impossible.” "Yet others claim, “It doesn’t make sense,” as if our understanding is predicated on whether or nor it makes sense to us.

As demonstrated in films like THE PRINCIPLE (wwwDOTtheprinciplemovieDOTcom, to name one, it appears that modern scientific data. experiments and observations only confirm what Genesis has told us–what Go has told us long ago.

What do you say?
 
Last edited:
kevkraft said:
I have asked “believers” who disbelieve the Bible’s creation account for their rationalization of their belief in the Big Bang cosmology and Evolutionism, both of which are based in atheism,
Click to expand...
The Big Bang theory was actually first posited by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Monsignor Lemaitre. Don’t know where you get this atheism stuff.


As for the rest of your query, I agree with 1ke.
 
Last edited:
kevkraft said:
I recent Gallup poll indicated that only 38% of those polled, which presumably included those who call themselves, Christians, Catholics and other related sects, believe the Genesis account of the origin of the Universe and that of Man. I have asked “believers” who disbelieve the Bible’s creation account for their rationalization of their belief in the Big Bang cosmology and Evolutionism, both of which are based in atheism, but never get areal answer. “Well, science tell us” is erroneous if the “scientists” are atheists who reject God in the first place. All their scientific assertions will be skewed that way. (Same with Creationism, but then the question becomes, “Whom do you believe–God’s Word or the word of those who despise him?”) I’ve even heard self-professed believers claim that Genesis’s account of Creation is, “Impossible.” "Yet others claim, “It doesn’t make sense,” as if our understanding is predicated on whether or nor it makes sense to us.

As demonstrated in films like THE PRINCIPLE (wwwDOTtheprinciplemovieDOTcom, to name one, it appears that modern scientific data. experiments and observations only confirm what Genesis has told us–what Go has told us long ago.

What do you say?
Click to expand...
I say that your post contains multiple errors of fact, and poses a false dichotomy.
 
Last edited:
There is a book called The Science of God - The convergence of Science and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald L Schroeder. It looks at the Creation story from the Bible Genesis 1 and the Big Bang from the point of view of the monobloc. As the universe gets larger, time and space stretch so that if looked at properly, there is an amazing convergence between the six days of creation from the Bible and the age of the universe.

There is an excellent summarization in the book The Choice Wine by Steve Bollman so I will not go into any more detail but there it is.
Check it out.

Patrick
 
Of course it is. Especially for those who regard science as the only source of knowledge.
 
Did anyone else catch how the OP was implying that Catholics are not Christian? That sould raise some red flags right there
 
Most Christians internationally are what we call “theistic evolutionists”, namely those accept the basic ToE as long as it’s understood that God was behind it all. The CC and PF accept that position as being hypothetically valid.
 
My position I assume would be called, fundamentalist. Although I don’t subscribe to a young earth theory.

Outside of that I believe the account to be accurate, just as my tutor John Lennox at Oxford does (which is where I did most of my questioning of it).

There seems to be a constant need for people to berate genesis as if it’s full of holes. Properly interpreted, I don’t see any.
 
Last edited:
kevkraft said:
“Well, science tell us” is erroneous if the “scientists” are atheists who reject God in the first place.
Click to expand...
The Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest working in the Vatican Observatory. Darwin was a devout Christian. They were observing what God had done in this world.

There is simply no scientific evidence for a 7 day creation 5000 years ago. You could believe that God created a universe that shows 15 billion years of wear and tear, I suppose…
 
Last edited:
I say the Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not necessarily how the heavens go.
 
Last edited:
Genesis is allegorical. The point is not to show scientifically how the earth was created, but a way of expressing human nature and our fall away form grace. Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the creation of “the self”. Jesus came to overcome this fall, hence why he said “you must deny your self”.
 
Last edited:
I believe in the Big Bang. God said, “Let there be,” and BANG! – There it was. 😃

D
 
As others have said, “both.”

I always liked this possible explanation put forth by St. Augustine. In Book 6 of “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine
There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.
Click to expand...
I find this explanation especially compelling because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man in Genesis. It is compatible with the Big Bang (creation in an instant of all in potency, but not final form) and a long evolutionary time frame (the shaping of everything after the creation).
 
The creation accounts (1:1 & 2:4), are most likely to be a Jewish reworking of a Babylonian epic, so the importance of these accounts is not whether they are historically accurate, which they clearly are not, but are the morals and values found within them. IOW, “the meaning behind the words”.

Traditional Judaism uses many forms of symbolism within their literature, so taking a literalistic approach all too often may be barking up the wrong tree.
 
Big Bang theory was first promoted by a catholic priest. I don’t see it as contradictory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top